1887
Volume 5, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001

Abstract

Abstract

Recently I took on the role of executive editor of a journal, after contributing as a reviewer and associate editor for many years. As I’ve gradually come to see more and more of the “back end” of academic journals, it becomes clear that authors are often unaware of how decisions are made regarding their submissions. This piece is thus written from the perspective of an editor assessing submissions and making decisions on what to send out to review, and what to return to authors as unsuitable for the particular journal (that is, desk rejecting). So, rather than writing about research into publication, this piece comes from my own insider perspective as an academic journal editor. It’s conversational rather than strictly academic.

My perspective on research publication is informed from multiple directions. I have a professional background in teaching English for Academic Purposes to culturally and linguistically diverse international students and as an editor for academic texts. These days I’m a researcher developer in an Australian university where I teach PhD candidates about research writing; I review for academic journals; I edit an academic journal; I write about my own research – and I receive peer review that is not always flattering! I’m a monolingual Anglo-Australian woman, with all of the baggage and privilege that entails.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue
2025-01-17
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jerpp.00019.gue.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C.
    (2014) Writing groups, theory, pedagogy and practice: An introduction. InC. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory (pp.4–17). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203498811‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203498811-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, K., Reardon, J., Lu, Y., Smith, D. V., Rainsford, E., & Walsh, L.
    (2022) Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(3). https://open-publishing.org/journals/index.php/jutlp/article/view/567/567. 10.53761/1.19.3.02
    https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.3.02 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbour, V.
    (2019) The future of academic publishing: Disruption, opportunity and a new ecosystem. Medical Journal of Australia, 211 (4), 151–152.e1. 10.5694/mja2.50265
    https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50265 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrot, J. S.
    (2023) Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 571, 100745. 10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 [Google Scholar]
  5. Besnier, N.
    (2019) From the editor: What I have learnt in the last four years. American Ethnologist: Journal of the American Ethnological Society, 46(4), 381–386. 10.1111/amet.12834
    https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12834 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B.
    (2010) Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3(1), 37–50. 10.5204/ijcis.v3i1.57
    https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v3i1.57 [Google Scholar]
  7. Borrego, Á.
    (2023) Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359–378. 10.1002/leap.1558
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cargill, M.
    (2006) Developing skills for publishing research articles internationally. InProceedings of the second ESL teaching and research international seminar, September 2004 (pp.1–16). Northwestern Polytechnical University Press Xi’An, PR China.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P.
    (2021) Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J.
    (2005) Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235. 10.1080/03054980500117827
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gagnon, J.
    (2021) Innovation without limits: Imagining a possible inclusive future for researchers. Keynote for Researcher Education and Development Scholarship (REDS) Conference: Online14th October.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Greussing, E., Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., & Haux, R.
    (2020) Drivers and obstacles of open access publishing. A qualitative investigation of individual and institutional factors. Frontiers in Communication, 51, 587465. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465/full. 10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465 [Google Scholar]
  13. Heard, S. B., Cull, C. A., & White, E. R.
    (2023) If this title is funny, will you cite me? Citation impacts of humour and other features of article titles in ecology and evolution. FACETS, 8(1), 1–15. 10.1139/facets‑2022‑0079
    https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0079 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kuteeva, M.
    (2023) Knowledge flows and languages of publication: English as a bridge and a fence in international knowledge exchanges. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 4(1), 80–93. 10.1075/jerpp.22008.kut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.22008.kut [Google Scholar]
  15. Leahy, R.
    (1992) Twenty titles for the writer. College Composition and Communication43(4), 516–519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/358644
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Marginson, S.
    (2016) High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 243–271. 10.1080/00221546.2016.11777401
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11777401 [Google Scholar]
  17. Misra, D. P., & Chandwar, K.
    (2023) ChatGPT, artificial intelligence and scientific writing: What authors, peer reviewers and editors should know. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 53(2), 90–93. 10.1177/14782715231181023
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715231181023 [Google Scholar]
  18. OECD
    OECD (2021) Reducing the precarity of academic research careers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No.113, OECD Publishing, Paris. 10.1787/0f8bd468‑en
    https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en [Google Scholar]
  19. Panda, P. K.
    (2022, 4June). Academic publishing: Don’t let the number crunchers win. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220​5301​3150​5452
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C.
    (2023) Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 571, 100752. 10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752 [Google Scholar]
  21. Thomson, P., & Kamler, B.
    (2016) Detox your writing: Strategies for doctoral researchers. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Yan, D.
    (2023) Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 281, 13943–13967. 10.1007/s10639‑023‑11742‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): desk reject; editor perspective; research writing; review processes
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error